LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/a-john-kennedy-etc-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-others-etc-20250324/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

A. John Kennedy Etc. vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others Etc.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
24 March 2025
Case No.
SLP (Civil) No(s). 999-1001 of 2025
Bench
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta
Citation
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1437 : 2025 INSC 443
Acts & Sections
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Forest Conservation Act, 1980 Tamil Nadu Forests Act, 1882
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1437 : 2025 INSC 443
Issue for consideration
The issues related to removal of encroachments and restoration of forest areas in the Agasthyamalai landscape, which includes within its ambit the Periyar Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Meghamalai and Thirunelveli Wildlife Sanctuaries.
Headnote

Forests – Western Ghats – Restoration of pristine forest areas and protection of tiger habitats/wildlife reserves/sanctuaries falling under the Agasthyamalai landscape – Directions given by Supreme Court – Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972:

Held: Forests form the lungs of the ecosystem, and any depletion/destruction of forest areas has a direct impact on the entire environment – World facing the calamities caused by the climate change, and the primary culprit is the depleting forest cover because of rapid urbanization, unchecked industrialization, encroachments, etc – Supreme Court has time and again passed mandatory directions to remove the encroachments from the forest areas and to curb any attempt to reduce the forest cover in the country – As an interim measure, Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to conduct an extensive survey of the entire Agasthyamalai landscape, including Periyar Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Meghamalai and Thirunelveli Wildlife Sanctuaries – CEC shall indicate in its report all instances of nonforestry activities going on in these areas contrary to the statutory provisions – CEC shall recommend measures for restoration of

(a) the reserved forests, (b) the tiger habitats, and (c) elephant corridors and (d) other wildlife reserves (sanctuaries) in and around the Agsthyamalai landscape, including the abovementioned sanctuaries/reserves – For this purpose, the CEC may employ all scientific procedures including Remote Sensing Satellite Imagery, Geo Mapping etc. [Paras 2, 4, 27, 29]

Keywords: Singampatti Zamin forests lands · Wildlife Sanctuary · Tiger Reserve · Reserve forest · Deputy Director and Wildlife Warden · BBTCL (Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited) · Lease · Non-forestry purposes · Kalakkad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve · Core Critical Tiger Habitat · Environment & Forests Department · Ecosystem · Climate change · Depleting forest cover · Urbanization · Industrialization · Encroachments · Eco-system · Ecological balance

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order Mehta, J. 1. These petitions raise two important issues for our consideration. The first being the preservation of Reserve Forests, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Tiger Reserves in the State of Tamil Nadu and the other being the claim of the petitioners, being the displaced tea estate workers, claiming rehabilitation pursuant to their eviction from an erstwhile tea estate by the name of Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Limited [for short ‘BBTCL’] located in Singampatti, Tamil Nadu, after the same was declared to be a Reserved Forest, Wildlife Sanctuary and Tiger Reserve under the provisions
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →